Help us reach our end-of-year support goal!

Your support, financial or otherwise, is what keeps the 'Geek online.
Only
23 days
left to get bonus GeekGold!
- learn more.
"I give because when my wife was in the hospital for 2 months, BGG became my personal escape even right at her bedside."
-
Jeffrey Spenner (HvKjr)

I was wondering: Can this game be played amicably? I'm not saying in a cooperative manner, but could this game be played with each Principality agreeing to not attack each other ever (although other NPC island nations are fair game)?

I was thinking that this might be a better fit for me and a couple others if this were possible.

One can play most games that have an aggression component amicably; however, the experience will not be the same. I'm not saying it will be a bad experience, just that it will not be the same.

Besides, where else can you obtain such a variety and surplus of valuables than from your "friends"?

As an example, I play 2-player Through the Ages with my wife and we remove the war cards when we play. It is also rare for one of us to even use Aggression cards. We enjoy it very much; however, it is not the same experience as when those cards are in and used well. But those experiences I reserve for my long time gaming friends who enjoy this sort of competition and play non-aggressively with my wife, which is more enjoyable for the two of us together.

Of course you can do anything you want, but I think there are probably 1000 other games on BGG that would be a lot more fun than "SeaFall without combat". Probably a quarter of the game involves combat directly, and much of the rest of the game is balanced around the assumption that players will attack opportunistically. So if you don't do any of that you can't really expect the game to work anything like how it was designed.

I also believe I have read from the designers that "opportunistic" combat, as David has suggested, is a more viable strategy than constant attacking and raiding.I know there are rules to punish you if you raid continually - both long and short term.

I also agree with David that if you avoid combat almost entirely, this game is probably not for you as 17th century sailing and exploring encourages combative and exploitation type behaviors.

Of course you can do anything you want, but I think there are probably 1000 other games on BGG that would be a lot more fun than "SeaFall without combat". Probably a quarter of the game involves combat directly, and much of the rest of the game is balanced around the assumption that players will attack opportunistically. So if you don't do any of that you can't really expect the game to work anything like how it was designed.

This is well-said.

It's definitely possible to play this game without ever interfering with each other, but, unless you agree specifically that "this is literally not a part of our rules set" then there will be moments when it's very, very obvious that the best thing to do is attack each other.

For instance, say you have 50 gold in your treasury and I need gold, and you're not particularly well-defended. I could not attack you, but in doing some I'm directly facilitating your game.

The game is designed so that at times it's best for you to be friendly and at times it's best for you to raid each other.

I've been playing through the campaign, and it's funny - after a year of not playing, I'd forgetting how much the threat of combat colors every game I play. In this way it's very muck like how my groups treat Scythe - I make ever decision under pressure, knowing that if I overextend myself I'll get punished for it. And I love this experience.

Also, I'd have to double-check, but I think there might be game rules and components that you can't even unlock ever if you can't attack the other players.

If that's the only limitation, it's easy to get around. Just make a house policy (not really a house rule, as such) that says that if a milestone of that sort is ever revealed, the player with the lowest title will raid (as painlessly as possible) the player with the highest title (ie, lowest gets credit for the milestone), then the higher title will respond in kind the following year (to "even" the scores and wipe out the enmity). For example, early in the campaign, raiding fields might be the most painless option.

But realistically, I'm not sure how good a game PeaceFall would be. I think that at the very least, the *possibility* of raiding is important -- ie, knowing that you *might* be attacked, even if actual attacks are few and far between. If you and your opponent both desperately need that last goods cube, "first come first served" seems less satisfying that "we'll see who ends up making it back to port with the goods". (And it seems highly likely that bigger stakes than goods cubes will present themselves later in the campaign.)

And as Thomas indicated, the game is designed -- early in the campaign, at least -- to encourage *occasional* opportunistic raiding rather than constant warfare. So even if you play the game as designed, a group of peaceful players may well result in a campaign with a light emphasis on raiding.

If that's the only limitation, it's easy to get around. Just make a house policy (not really a house rule, as such) that says that if a milestone of that sort is ever revealed, the player with the lowest title will raid (as painlessly as possible) the player with the highest title (ie, lowest gets credit for the milestone), then the higher title will respond in kind the following year (to "even" the scores and wipe out the enmity). For example, early in the campaign, raiding fields might be the most painless option.

I've never seen such enthusiasm for redesigning a game from someone who hasn't played it or read the rules yet. I admire your energy! Really!

If that's the only limitation, it's easy to get around. Just make a house policy (not really a house rule, as such) that says that if a milestone of that sort is ever revealed, the player with the lowest title will raid (as painlessly as possible) the player with the highest title (ie, lowest gets credit for the milestone), then the higher title will respond in kind the following year (to "even" the scores and wipe out the enmity). For example, early in the campaign, raiding fields might be the most painless option.

I've never seen such enthusiasm for redesigning a game from someone who hasn't played it or read the rules yet. I admire your energy! Really!

Sure. I read all of what you write. But it's kind of like reading a disquisition on the proper techniques for sailing across the Pacific from someone who lives in a desert and has never been to the ocean.

Currently in our 5 player game, we have played 8 games. 2 of the players occasionally raid sites a few times each game (one originally started off aggressive against other players in the first game or two, but that ended mostly when a new player took over that province), I occasionally raid a site when I want an upgrade and raid players about once every 1-3 games when it is strategically necessary, and two players have never once raided (sites or players) the entire campaign.